There are three layers to unpick from last week’s Budget.

First, the headline measures announced by the Chancellor in the hour or so she’s on her feet. Next comes the analysis from journalists and economists who go through the full document for the rest of the day (this year they got a 30-minute head start). And finally, over the days that follow, more emerges as the hundreds of pages of text and numbers are combed through.

Immediately after the Budget I joined a discussion on ITV Meridian. We talked about the change in business rates for shops, pubs and cafes - a key sector for our local economy. The MPs from other parties on either side of me welcomed what the Chancellor had announced as “permanently lower tax rates for retail hospitality and leisure”. I was more cautious. In this tax-hiking Budget it sounded a bit too good to be true … and it was.

A closer reading of the Red Book (the fine print of the Budget) – coupled with a separate low-key announcement the same day – reveals it is far from the case that all retail and hospitality rates bills will come down. Many will be going up.

Business rates are fixed, unavoidable costs that you pay before you’ve pulled a single pint or welcomed a single customer. I worry that increasing the cost of running a business will deter new start-ups as well as adding to the strain on existing businesses. This of course comes on top of the increase in NICs and the expected effect of new employment legislation.

Another area that went largely unnoticed on Budget day was student loans. By freezing repayment thresholds, many young people will start repaying their loans sooner than expected. This just happens to raise a cool £400 million for the government.

Deep in the Red Book is also a major shift for Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) funding. The government intends to move responsibility for £6 billion of SEND funding into central government from 2028. Although the details are for now scant, there are serious concerns that this could mean the overall schools budget being raided.

The OBR has calculated that if these costs were borne fully within the existing core schools budget that could mean a 4.9 percent reduction in funding per pupil. That would be massive and I can hardly imagine the government trying such a thing.

But having spent more time than most looking at the finances of the Department for Education, I can say with confidence that there is nowhere else in that department’s budget, other than the schools budget, to absorb such a hit. If it does not come from schools, the only other realistic sources would have to be outside education. The Government has shown little appetite to control welfare spending, which raises the spectre of further tax rises.

On the evening of Budget day, I tabled parliamentary questions to seek clarity. We will have to see what comes back. I am already deeply concerned about the funding effect of falling pupil numbers, which on the current formula would automatically reduce money for schools, especially small rural schools, of which we have quite a few in East Hampshire. If per-pupil funding were to fall further, the consequences could be very serious indeed.